To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.dat.partsOpen lugnet.cad.dat.parts in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / LDraw Files / Parts / 6467
6466  |  6468
Subject: 
Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
Date: 
Sun, 7 Feb 2010 03:55:20 GMT
Viewed: 
16641 times
  
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Tore Eriksson wrote:
   In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Travis Cobbs wrote:
  
  • Explicitly allow “dither” colors in official patterned/sticker parts. Right now, they are used, but we could not find anywhere in any specification where they are even mentioned. This option would essentially officially recognize the current status quo. (I’m not aware of any “dither” colors being used outside of patterns/stickers, but we don’t intend to allow that.)

I don’t know if I got that right. Isn’t Maersk Blue one of those part colors most wrongfully and misleadingly labeled as a “dithered” color?

Two things. First of all, is Maersk Blue hard-coded into any part files? I would expect parts that show up in Maersk Blue to have color 16 encoded in the file, and the user to select Maersk Blue as the parts’ color when building a model. Since we are only interested in restrictions on colors for official parts, this wouldn’t be an issue here.

Secondly, we plan to recommend that LDConfig.ldr contain all “brick” colors, meaning all colors that LEGO has shipped bricks in (including Maersk Blue). My original list of options was ambiguous, but as long as a given color shows up in LDConfig.ldr, we will be allowing it in parts, even if the color code picked comes from the “dither” range. This will be the case no matter which of the three options we decide upon. In other words, even if we forbid “dither” colors from being used, colors in that range that also appear in LDConfig.ldr will still be allowed.


   I repeat my opinion when it comes to defining new part color numbers for the official LDConfig.ldr, that they should be picked from the blended (=”dithered”) area as long as there are free numbers to choose. Thus, anyone who hasn’t the latest LDConfig would get a fair closest existing color blend. And, of course, no programs that support LDConfig will have any problems replacing that blended color with the LDConfig entry! It sounds like some preople believe that picking a number from that area would cause any problem, but that is of course not true. Or is there something I’m unaware of?

What to do in LDConfig.ldr is that other half of our discussion. I can’t remember the specifics off-hand, but we have pretty much agreed upon what to do there. We will be releasing rules for LDConfig.ldr at the same time we enact rules for color usage in official parts. I personally agree that new color codes should be picked from the “dither” range where possible for maximum backwards compatibility, but I can’t remember if this is the LSC consensus.

--Travis



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
 
(...) I didn't get it right at all, but now I think I do. It isn't an issue here and, believe it or not, I'm cool with it. :) (...) Good! :) (...) I'm glad that at least I'm not alone with this opinion. :) /T (15 years ago, 7-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: "Dither" colors in patterned/sticker parts
 
(...) I don't know if I got that right. Isn't Maersk Blue one of those part colors most wrongfully and misleadingly labeled as a "dithered" color? (...) I suggest the 0x2RRGGBB form is recommended for less "basic"/established pattern and sticker (...) (15 years ago, 7-Feb-10, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, FTX)

68 Messages in This Thread:
























Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR